What exactly is wrong with sexual liberation...

What exactly is wrong with sexual liberation? All it does is allow people the freedom to choose who they associate with and engage in consensual acts with?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qj3fe2eCerc
youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because most people are a slave to social norms

sexual liberation is not about choosing your own "friends"
its about being a huge whore and not being publicly shamed for it

...

"Sexual liberation" is a misnomer. It's more like sexual polarization. Less and less men get access to females so they feel left out. These males eventually check out of society.

A society of women and a few chads can't be sustained and will eventually be conquered by stronger patriarchal cultures that everyone can participate and has an important role in this case Hispanic culture and Islam.

Because Sup Forums can't get laid

all this does is encourage competition so men work out, get better jobs, get better social skills, etc. It's a free market at work.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=qj3fe2eCerc

It encourages being careless and in the moment like a twinkling superstar about who you sleep with. Any Chad/Ashley with nice bodies are the goal. It glorifies sleeping around for the sake of seeking pleasure without regard to how many people you've slept with prior. This becomes a problem, especially in women, as it goes against their sexual biology.

See: Oxytocin and Microchimerism.

Uncontrolled female hypergamy ruins this though. No matter how much you try there will always be a better man out there. With the ease of divorce and female princess complex they will simply jump onto the better guy and take some of your money in the meantime. Then he isn't enough because there's an even bigger guy out there.

Women don't like to fuck the people who keep society running.

>comparing any of this to the free market

lmao

it is though, there is competition for people's value and resources, which are sex and bodies and time

But thinking of relationships and love as "competition and products" is harmful.

It's the same thing. In any unregulated free market, monopolies form. See: 80/20 rule.

It doesn't matter if it's harmful, it matters if it's true.

Free market leads to 1% owning everything and 99% starving to death.

Truly makes one ponder...

But it isn't true. That isn't what love is about.

So true. The biggest player I know is a super good looking dude that lives with his mom at 27, never had a job, dropped out of college after 1 semester, smokes weed every day. Yet because of his good looks he has an ever revolving door of sexy 18 year olds he fucks. Meanwhile me, same age, have a career and my own place, make damn good money, drive a 2015 audi, did everything right in life yet I'm a virgin at 27.

/End Thread

The problem is women have to do almost nothing to maintain themselves and have a distinct advantage by being women, in addition to a number of men having poor genetics. Men will like women solely because they can fuck them.

Sexual liberation is creating a class of men who will have no access to women (and in turn bearing children) and therefore will have no incentive to continue improving themselves or society as a whole. In turn, women have the deck stacked in their favor, as most can have their pick of men.

It doesn't matter what love is about, it matters how love behaves and whether the "market" model is predictive, which it is.

yeah right cuck fantasizer

a 27 yo isn't meeting 18 yo

You
You are one of these guys, guys who are happy that they live in world we are living.
Reducing everything to product which can be bought or sold.
You are jew, even if you do not know that.

youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
>he fell for it

Because the delusional fucks on this board are angry because they can't live up to the lowest standars

>inb4 cuck
>inb4 WOMEN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE armtite polbros ? Am i cool now ?

...

I'm just approaching this with a scientific mindset, because it's the best way to get the results you want. Just like the economic market needs regulation to thrive, so does the sexual market.

Nothing... oh but wait lets see... it's like the USA and guns. Guns aren't a problem in itself. It's the people handling them that are the issue.

Now it's clear America cannot handle having guns everywhere. You people practically make mass shootings a national hobby. Switzerland has one of the worlds highest gun ownerships yet mass shootings are so rare.

The same applies to sexual liberation. Its fine being allowed to fuck as much and whom you wish... but some cultures handle this better than others. Swiss people are free sexually. It's not a big issue. However in America it has brought about so much issues like this MGTOW movement, this cancerous feminist movement, slut pride, this idea that whores cannot be shamed, etc. Switzerland doesn't have this.

To call it sexual lbieration is to be idiot to stupid to see what this "liberation" is all about.

It was women's enslavement to the tax system. But women being the vain and self-centered creatures they are, all that was needed was to appeal to their self-interest, give it some good sounding and buzzword and they took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Accomplishments of "sexual liberation":
-Women are more depressed.
-Drink more.
-Smoke more.
-Men losing more and more interest on them.

Welcome to the workcamp females rememeber arbeit macht frei and enjoy your stay!

The hell is going on in this?

The old sexual norms existed for a reason.

When being promiscuous is considered not a bad thing, you end up with more promiscuous people and as a result, you end up with those people being unhappier, shittier marriage partners and shittier parents.

The biggest problem is what caused the "sexual liberation " to happen, which is some kind of hedonism, caused by an ignorance of the classics of Western Civilization (how many people have read Seneca, for example?) and the fal of religion.

If people had read Seneca, Cicero, Aristotle and understood it, they wouldn't become sex obcessed hedonists. Church attendance would also help.

This brings knowledge that sex is not what brings happiness or makes you a great person (notice how in popular culture, "virgin" is used as an insult to call someone a failure).

Making women seem equal and removing their subhuman-marking clothes is somehow against equality.

The feminists now support burkas and burkinis, #wtffrance is trending. It finally actually happened.

>sexual market
This all shit we are currently in is because some dumb fuck decided that everything is competition and everything is a market for resources, and everything is exploitable resource, which wrong as fuck, because not all things are, and not all people want to compete all the time, some just have their small dreams, achieve them and want to chill, but nooo, you must be stronger, faster, better, MORE RICH

People in 2016 need more, and more, probably because they are bored. Intelligent people are never bored, but they are, checking next new vine, or social movement, or eating up another shitty pop culture product, because that is what this civilization is. Bunch of consumers with gaping void inside them.
If only people would be happy with stuff they have, peace will be achieved instantly.
>sexual market needs to thrive
No, it fuckin does not. Does not at all. Women sexual value decreases each time she takes cock in one of her numerous holes.

Please explain how the economy of scale doesn't produce a positive feedback loop. The more products you sell, the more money you make, and the easier it becomes to make more products which can be sold more cheaply than your competitors' products. There is no natural limiting factor on growth in a free market.

>welfare state lead to pussy monopoly
God damn, never even thought of it that way

Competition is good, not bad.

This poast triggers me

she's literally turning into a bimbo

Look guys, I know things about women that would make most of you cry. It literally is 100% all about looks. Its all genetics. I mean you can improve yourself by working out and getting a better haircut but that won't change you much unless you're really fat and had a handsome face under it. Your face, your height, your frame (like the width of your shoulders) things you cannot control will determine your fate with women.

Its all LOOKS. Unless you're a millionaire and then you can just buy women.

all it does is allow people to spread stds and cripple their ability to form longterm bonds that lead to stable families and children

...

In the free market traditional family corporations out compete the hedonistic single mom start ups.

Exactly. It really comes down to competition and survival of the fittest. I wouldn't say "pick a man and stay with him for good." Because there's a lot more behind picking a man and staying with him than looking at it at face value. Ideally, women should critically think about their ideals and beliefs in life and choose their mate from there on. If a woman found a man that she was so happy with from the get go because she knew that as a team, they could achieve what they both want out of life optimally, and it would be a much stronger bond. It seems that sexual liberation erases this process or sweeps it under the rug. There isn't as much deciding based on long term consequences and companionship, rather than simple gratification. Lack of critical planning and exploration of eachother's values and goals before involving yourselves in a relationship will cause it to crash and burn. Sexual liberation is a gratification method and a cheap way to raise self esteem to metaphorically "climb the ladder" of quality mates. Quality in regard to looks and charisma. "Well I've been with him/her so I can do better now. Let's see how far I can go."

Nothing, weeb virgins think 30 years ago hot women would have gone to their door to suck their dick.Reality is men have changed much more than women.

All this graph shows me is that multiple partners are fine as long as you don't go complete Turbo Slut mode (10+ partners) and that what we really should be worried about, is the age that people start becoming sexually active. So, pedofags BTFO?

> What are diseconomies of scale
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

It's the hangover from the christian religion. Westerners got divorced from their true roots and upon rejecting the christian alien cult they have nothing to fall back to, so they become nihilistic animals

There's nothing wrong with it you're White. We earned it. The problem is when you get backwards people coming to the West and joining in but still pushing their shitty culture.

>and not all people want to compete all the time
It doesn't matter what you *want* to do, it matters what you *are doing*. Women don't choose sexual partners randomly, there are certain traits they look for which provide a statistical benefit to the men who have them. Since there are not infinite women, that means some men will be left out, the majority of which do not intend to be left out. This means there are winners and losers, even if nobody knows they're playing a game.

PEMDAS. 8.

Good looking man here. I can confirm.

Because people are being dogs and using "liberation" as some kind of buzzword to avoid any self-discipline and/or consequences.

Example via pooping:

Liberation as it SHOULD mean -
Society shouldn't act like pooping isn't a thing that all men/women, young/old people naturally do. Nor that it can that there isn't perfectly acceptable contexts where it can be brought up in conversations, especially regarding toilet health.
Also we understand it's not the end of the world if someone has ever had such bad diarrhea that they can't hold it in before they reach the toilet. Nor if say they were young/drunk and one time pooped on an ex's doorstep or what have you. While neither of those things are great, people shouldn't be forever considered outcasts for a couple of slip ups.

Liberation as the BUZZWORD the sexual perps keep using it -
People saying that they can randomly poop/piss/fart into a bag in the middle of a high street and branding those having issues with it as poo bigots who "if they don't like street pooping, then don't street poop."
And "I'm not publicly pooping for anyone else to see, I'm just publicly pooping for me and me alone". Because apparently what other people don't have eyes.

yes it is sexual capitalism, just like in real life the game is RIGGED. The top 20% of men were born with god tier genetics and get all the women. Just like how the ultra rich are always born into wealth. They didn't earn it just like chad or brad didn't earn being 6'2 with a chiseled jaw line and a perfect face. But he will tell you "just work out and be urself, thats what I do" just like they tell you "just work hard and go to school" when they didn't.

The game is rigged and you're a pawn in it, you're all losers playing a game you can't win. You will never touch a woman over a 6/10 without paying for it. No attractive woman will EVER love you.

>What exactly is wrong with sexual liberation?

No successful man or any sane man for that matter, is going to want some used up whore. So if a woman wants to be sexually liberated, then they must accept that their giving up something that will actually make them happy for the rest of their lives, once they're all used up they might as well pic related.

Way more people get sex nowadays than 60 years ago

Socrates on the effects democracy has on young people:
"And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures. "

There are worlds of difference between liberty and license.

"Sexual liberation" is just a thinly veiled attempt to give women complete protection from the consequences of short sightedness, stupidity, selfishness, and greed.

But you knew that, shill. >>>/faggots/

Olympians look like dat?!?

>more products
>cheaper
Ok, this sounds like a pretty beneficial monopoly to me.
All of the consumers get what they want at the lowest possible price, how is this a problem?

Economics has some uses, but it is not very useful as a guide to study this.

You are supposing that people should maximize the number of "hot" sexual partners, in order to maximize utility. This is not the case.

>Be me.
>Be scruffy for a extended period of time.
>One day decide to get a nice haircut and trim my beard. Enjoy the looks feel my confidence boosted too.
>mfw suddenly female gaze takes note of me and women that would never take interest in me now do.

There might be more truth to your statement then most of us would care to admit.

If all the competitors are out of business, the price doesn't have to stay low.

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet, but it's the relaxation of stigma surrounding prostitution (in real life or online).

I can't tell you how many girls I've seen who just treat cam whoring as a safe anonymous fun time that makes loads of money easily. You don't want your daughter growing up thinking that being able to sell sex is something you should resort to with very little thinking and consideration of the consequences.

I'm not saying anyone *should* do anything. I'm saying that
>people should maximize the number of "hot" sexual partners
is what women *actually do*.

If when you go out women aren't approaching you, giving you looks, writing their numbers down on a piece of paper and leaving it on your car, trying to flag you down, bumping into you on "accident", you are NOT sexually attractive to women and you're in the bottom 80%. You will either have to lower your standards to pathetic levels or you will die a virgin. You're not ever going to get an attractive thin woman in this sexual economy. You lost the genetic lottery like most guys did. You're invisible to women. Good game kiddo.

Boy am I glad the gym shills are here in full force to tell me how to chase materialistic women. You're really making people's lives better user

Because now Mr. Average doesn't get to end up with Mrs. Average and have Master and Misses Average. This in turn leads to a declining population.

It sounds good because it's not true and that retard doesn,t know jackshit about basic economics.
>Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause larger firms and governments to produce goods and services at increased per-unit costs. The concept is the opposite of economies of scale. [citation needed] The rising part of the long-run average cost curve illustrates the effect of diseconomies of scale.

More partners doesn't equal more sex.

It is what PROMISCUOUS women do.

As it turns out, this is not what makes them happier.

And there are non-promiscuous women that don't do this.

This is incorrect. Way more sex is going on, sure, but less people are having it.

the fuck is she drinking

>Competition is good, not bad.
According to Darwinism, yes.
But not things need to be competition.
Consider this: Your father is a decent man
But your neighbour is decent man AND is rich
Should your mother bang your neighbour?

>Since there are not infinite women
Yeah, they are finite, but get this, in theory, there is 1:1 ratio women:men
Biologically they want the best, and they do not mind sharing the best male with other females

Men do mind sharing females, in fact, they do not do that

If man could overcame their natural instincts and do not rape everything with a pussy, why women cannot suck it up and stop with their bullshit instincts?

Sexual liberation was a mistake.
I will never accept used goods or fat chicks.

fat fuck detected. hit the weights, but do it for yourself, not for grills.

Consensual sex is not what sex is for. Sex without being directed towards children is selfish and destroys society by immorality in seeking self satisfaction.
A good sign that the human person isn't supposed to do something is that they get sick from it. Like catching STDs.

Saged

it leads to pent up beta rage and eventually shit like Elliot Rodgers happens.

Is there any solution to this?

Then new competitors will enter the market.
Sustainable competitive advantage has to be maintained to maintain a monopoly in a free market.

>Mcdonalds
>Knocks out all competition, bc cheap as fuck
>All fast food is Mcdonalds
>Mcdondals starts charging $5 a burger
>I open restaurant
>"4-chinz Burgers & Fries"
>Charge $4 a burger
>Profit

i dont know what you mean
are you talkin about fuckin?
fuckin is good

Just a comment to the pseudo-economists here trying to defend promiscuity: if here are weak property rights, you will not invest as much as you would otherwise.

Non-promiscuous women are statistical outliers.

The oxytocin derived from sex between a husband and wife improves the marriage and devotes the wife to her husband, improving their relationship, and subsequently, the psychology of their children.

Women getting oxytocin by sexing up different partners confuses this devotion and ultimately leads to unhappiness and depression.

This is like... psych 101

The reason there isn't an ER tier shooting every week is because the majority of sexless beta men (the 80%ers) are playing video games, watching anime, arguing about politics and posting on reddit. If you took all that away from them reality would set in quick and they would realize where they stand on the sexual food chain.

PEMDAS is fucking retarded.
Multiplication and division are equal, but because of this shit taught in American schools, you get dozens of Burgers on this board alone thinking multiplications are done before divisions, instead of in order left to right.

More like this:
>Mcdondals starts charging $5 a burger
>I open restaurant
>"4-chinz Burgers & Fries"
>Charge $4 a burger
>Mcdonalds has a $1 burger special until you go out of business
Wash, rinse, repeat.

Women don't want average men, they don't even want slightly above average men (6/10 or 7/10). They literally ONLY want men in the top 20% and they will do whatever they can in their youth to secure one even if it is just for one night.

Elliot Rodgers is whole other league. Mixed race kids get shafted when it comes to sexual market value. Whores want pure bred men (ironic given that the result might be a mixed kid in the end too). Also Asian's are the least desirable of races when it comes to sex in murica.

Basically Elliot's parent short-changed him. It also didn't help that he was single son of divorced parents. Which means huge fragile ego.

Mark my words. Soon they will realise that not all of them can get the top ~20% in a monogamous system, so they'll start advocating for polygamy. Should take a few years at most for it to start in force.

In fairness that's not sexual liberation's fault, although i am in no way defending it. That's down to media shilling and welfare society.

All media tells us that fucking is cool, everyone is fucking and everyone wants to fuck that really chilled out, left wing guy who is preferably mixed race.

They say otherwise, that they hate men who live at home, smoke weed etc etc but what they mean is they hate unattractive men who do that. If you are whatever the media currently says is desirable and leftist you'll rake in girls.

Its already like that, women have no problem sharing top tier men with other women. A woman would rather share a 20%er male with 4 other females than settle down with an average looking guy.

Yes, women would rather share chad dick than even TOUCH any of you.

but that can't last, eventually chad will marry some stacy and leave all the other whores in the dust, what happens to them then?

Nope. They will either start feigning interest in right wings politics or go super turbo turn coat and advocate more mixing with migrants and kebabs.

Women have no interest in polygamy, polygamy is bad for women's sexual market value. When you own allot of one thing means that each single thing is worth less.

Polygamous marriages, mate. They'll ALL marry Chad.

That's already happened, though. Polyamory and "open relationships" are a big thing with hipster cucks. I can't see why they'd want polygamy though, getting married means they'd have to settle down with just one Chad.

>What exactly is wrong with sexual liberation?
nobody wants a washed up saggy slag

Chads don't marry, especially ones in our generation. Look around at married couples, they're usually ugly or average looking. Marriage is for two people that know they can't really do any better.

but most chads wont want that

t. sex tourist

That is interesting. Can you explain the whole Alpha concept? How can there be one Alpha since there are men who will always be better? If anything Alphas would make it so that there is no competition and challenge to his throne.